Not to mention what the bacteria produce as a byproduct of digestion. Do they excrete C02? That would acidify and carbonate ocean water. Do they consume 02 as part of their digestive process? That'd suck oxygen out of the water.... Yes-- I would agree with - be vary wary indeed.
If they are carbonating the ocean water, then that'll go just fine with all of the "mountains" of sea grass sugars from the recent post on the subject. We're well on our way to making the oceans into soda water. Yet another example of the prophecies Idiocracy foretold.
And, you know, for better or worse, we really rely on plastic for, well, pretty much everything. If we can no longer trust it to do things like safely transport medicine, we’re gonna be in real trouble.
They are also heavier, less robust, more rigid, harder to seal tightly (without plastic), and completely impractical for large-ish items like some food items. Plastic-wrapped bananas are craziness, but a huge lot of our amazing level of food safety depends on plastics, so we can expect getting sick from food a lot more in a post-plastic world, like we used to before the advent of almost-free plastic wrappers.
I don't remember getting sick from food because it was wrapped in paper. And we still don't really know what all the hormone-like substances and microplastics leaching into our food do as a whole.
First of all, anything that is reasonably dry usually stays reasonably safe against bacteria. Unless the bacteria learns to combine oxygen with the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons to form their source of humidity, I think these should be relatively stable, still.
And we still have the option to store things in metal containers, like cans if we need that extra durability.
But under humid conditions, if bacteria become able to consume plastic the way they can consume organic matter, I would be even more concerned about regular grocery wrapping. Not only could the wrapping break, one could also get half-digested toxic materials into the food itself.
Yeah. Although I didn't explicitly state it, this is what I was implying. For example, could plastic-eating-bacteria "super bloom" in a plastic rich localized area of the ocean - suck up all the oxygen with it's bloom and kill off competing species of fish, plankton, etc... causing food chain disruptions? Could a localized super bloom acidify a localized coral reef with the C02 byproduct?
I'm no ecologist or scientist, so I am not saying that it necessarily would happen, but we should think through these things as a matter of due-diligence before proposing that we toss this stuff in the ocean at scale.
What makes you think that the researchers would not also be investigating for unexpected and potentially dangerous side effects before "toss[ing] this stuff in the ocean at scale"?
Not a given. If you introduce this gene into the ocean You’ve essentially introduced this into the horizontal gene transfer gene pool. This is how microbes evolve for the most part. If this enzyme confers even the slightest advantage some microbes will start using it. I really don’t see what the problem is though, we introduced a substance other organisms can’t digest and now we are introducing tools they can use to restore the balance.
I think though that the fact is that these biomes are evolving already means that irrespective of this research or its development, natural evolution is already responding.
If we stopped polluting tomorrow, which I wish we could, we would still need to get rid of the pollution already produced. If the natural biome is already responding, then that's a good thing.
We are already fucking with ecosystems with all the plastic fishing nets we are dumping in the ocean, and the microplastics that are everywhere. Obviously we shouldn't execute plans without a solid analysis, but entertaining ideas that resolve the problems we create is the first step.
You’re fucking with the ecosystem by existing. We all do. In the end we can only make a best guess estimate of what the effects of our action can be. What’s clear is inaction isn’t an option.
Not really. The horizontal gene transfer pool is local - you'll find microsystems where the plasmid or gene segment is present, but unless the gene itself provides some fitness benefit to the host, it will be outcompeted in general.
You'd expect a tiny reservoir of the gene to remain in circulation in heavily plastic polluted areas with low nutrient density, but you wouldn't expect the gene to represent a gain of function phenotypic change to the general microbe population.
When these hybrids are initially created, they'd likely be created via transfected plasmids that produce a ton of the enzyme - the fitness downside for a bacteria to produce a non-mutated version of the plasmid would be phenomenally large.
In the same way that we can create little insulin factory bacteria, our little plastic enzyme bacteria are not going to turn the world into grey goo; they're literally parasitized and weaker than wildtype at existing in the wild. If they weren't, they'd be the wildtype.
Because they're using energy making an enzyme that only produces a positive impact on fitness in the event plastic is the best food source in the area. In all other cases, a leaner genome that isn't wasting energy on a useless enzyme is reproducing faster.
Even if plastic is heavily concentrated in the environment, if plastic isn't very energetically favorable to decompose, the environment will ALSO need to have a dearth of other available resources in order for the enzyme to provide a fitness benefit.
A good example of the situation is cellulose. Various animals can eat it. Yet trees continue to flourish for hundreds of millions of years since biological machinery to digest cellulose is very energetically expensive and slow.
That's a really bad example as plastics don't have defense mechanisms other than how hard they are to digest compared to other materials in the environment. Trees are alive and have multiple defenses.
If 'bugs are evolving to eat plastic' does that not mean that the bacteria that can metabolize plastic are outcompeting wildtype strains, not the other way around?
Don't see why you couldn't supplement existing recycle infra till we understand it better.
TBH, I'm sure any company would jump to be the first to show off plastic eating bacteria. Even if it's kept in a clean room and only eats employee's soda bottles from time to time.
It would definitely open the door to more funding and research if hyped enough.
We just have to make sure we know exactly how it propagates and how to safely handle that like anything else.
Ideally you wouldn't want it to be a covid 2.0, of course. Something more like medical grade maggots that are engineered to never reproduce would suffice.
Hmm, I might suggest reading/watching Andromeda Strain to see how well "clean room" reacts to unkown foreign substance. How much plastic is used in proposed clean room that the bacteria will feast on to weaken the "well laid plans" of the clean room's designers before escaping into the wild?
And the dinosaurs in Jurasic Park were engineered to be only females.
I don't trust humans manipulating organisms at this level. We're too new at it, but I understand that you have to try things out. We all do it with code when we're learning a new language/framework/etc. However, we've all had code that was only intended to be a PoC that then gets released into production without being fully tested. That's when the issues are found. Some lab wants to monetize the thing they've spent years researching but not fully understood/tested and then we're all some scifi plot.
Not all fiction is pure fantasy. Sometimes, the fictional work is from someone very smart and researched on a topic that comes up with a story that not only entertains but provokes a larger discussion on the topic. For example, Tom Clancy wrote about using an airplane as a kinetic weapon. Clancy was known for being very well researched on the topics he discussed. Too bad his plot device wasn't given more attention in the real world or the beginning decades of the 21st century might have turned out differently. From my understanding Crichton was known to have researched his topics as well.
Humanity ignore the thought discussions that ficitional work provokes at humanity's peril.
It's enzymes the organisms are producing. You don't have to release the "bugs" (Bacteria, I assume? I don't love the writing here.) into the environment. You culture the bacteria and extract the enzymes for use in removing plastic from the environment.
And then the ocean water and plastic-eating enzymes make their way into the fresh water supply, dissolving plastic pipes and appliances everywhere. Sounds like a J. G. Ballard novel.
PVC and ABS are used in water pipes, PET is used in bottles. It seems unlikely that these bacteria would have the ability to break down 3 completely different types of ‘plastic’.
> It seems unlikely that these bacteria would have the ability to break down 3 completely different types of ‘plastic’.
FTA: "The research scanned more than 200 million genes found in DNA samples taken from the environment and found 30,000 different enzymes that could degrade 10 different types of plastic."
Right - presumably those 10 different types of plastic are broken down by different enzymes among those 30,000, which are found in different genes among those 200 million.
Even widespread destruction of any one of those would cause massive destruction to humanity as machines, pumps, pipes, water plants, sewage plants, transportation systems, and more fail. Water touching plastic components are everywhere.
I suppose plastics are a bit like antibiotics. The more we use it, the more nature will adapt.
On the other hand, we probably still have decades, if not hundreds of years, before we see the full effect. Plenty of time to prepare alternatives that doesn't carry a usable form of energy inside.
Fiberglass is not plastic. It’s glass, bonded by epoxy resins. I guess epoxies are a kind of plastic, but they’re completely different chemicals than the polymers typically used in plastic items, and so likely would be immune to enzymes in question.
If they're completely different chemicals, then it's just as likely that one of the many bugs already in the environment will evolve to eat epoxy. The plastic-eating bugs wouldn't have any particular advantage.
A lot of the drawbacks of plastics in the food chain are theoretical right now. Not saying we won’t find out it’s a major problem, but detecting presence of something (which is what most press releases of plastic pollution are about) does not necessarily mean it’s toxic. I think we should study this first, and try mechanical cleanup instead.
Isn't the bigger unintended consequence that it makes plastic not durable any more? In some sense it's the wrong problem to solve. You want durability in a material but want a toggle (or condition change) to trigger an alteration in its property when you're done with it.
"In the shaft leading to the [ventilation] grille a mindless, groping mass of malodorous corruption was thrusting its way silently towards the surface. Buoyed up by bubbling foam it steadily rose. Single units in an obscene abrogation of normal order divided and made two. Two became four and four, eight. "
